2013
DOI: 10.7439/ijbr.v4i11.425
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study of duplication of optic canal in hundred dry human skull bones

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Patil et al [10] have reported an overall incidence of 2.75% with bilateral duplication in 3 skulls (0.75%) and unilateral duplication in 8 skulls (2%) Singh [6] has reported duplication of optic canal in 13 skulls (2.98%), of which, 7 skulls (1.6%) had bilateral and 6 skulls (1.38%) had unilateral duplication. Shinde et al [11] have reported a single case (1%) with unilateral duplication. In the study of Berlis et al [12], there was an incidence of 2.5% of the duplicate optic canal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Patil et al [10] have reported an overall incidence of 2.75% with bilateral duplication in 3 skulls (0.75%) and unilateral duplication in 8 skulls (2%) Singh [6] has reported duplication of optic canal in 13 skulls (2.98%), of which, 7 skulls (1.6%) had bilateral and 6 skulls (1.38%) had unilateral duplication. Shinde et al [11] have reported a single case (1%) with unilateral duplication. In the study of Berlis et al [12], there was an incidence of 2.5% of the duplicate optic canal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Various authors conducted an extensive review of the duplicate optical canal (DOC) offers a sum number of previously reported cases. In the literature, we evidence that duplicate optic canal had been documented as an osteological study in dried human skulls and few conducted as a radiological study [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] (Table 2).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(%) Zoja et al (3) (1885) 5 6 Le Double et al (4) (1903) Case report 1 2 White et al (5) (1924) 161 3 3 1.86% Whitnell et al (6) (1932) Case report 1 1 Keyes et al (7) (1935) 2187 5 5 0.22% Warwick et al (8) (1951) Case report 1 2 Kier et al (1) (1996) 450 5 5 1.2% Lang et al (9) (1977) 3 4 Choudhry et al (2) (1988) Case report 3 5 Berlis et al (10) (1992) 80 2 2 2.5% Orhan M A et al (11) (1996) 369 2 3 0.54% Singh et al (12) (2005) 435 13 20 2.98 Math AC et al (13) (2010) 316 2 4 0.63% Patil GV et al (14) (2011) 400 11 14 2.75% Mahajan A et al (15) (2012) 96 1 1 1.04% Ghai R et al (16) (2012) 194 5 7 2.57% Shinde et al (17) (2013) 100 1 1 1% Swetha et al (18) (2014) 67 3 4 4.47% Vanitha et al (19) (2014)…”
Section: Percentagementioning
confidence: 99%